Judgment : 1. The short question arises in this Crl. Revision is whether the act of the husband in bringing a concubine to his house, and living with her as husband and wife in the presence of his wife, amounts to 'cruelty' within the meaning of S.498A of IPC? 2. The petitioner/husband who is the accused in C.C.No.310 of 2001 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Perinthalmanna, has challenged the conviction and sentence, before the Sessions Court, Manjeri through Crl.Appeal No.51 of 2005. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, concurred with the findings entered by the trial court, and dismissed the appeal through the impugned judgment. 3. PW1, Sumathi, was given in marriage to the petitioner 20 years back to the commencement of the case before the trial court. Two children were born in their wedlock. The elder daughter was given in marriage and younger son was only 10 at the time of evidence before the trial court. PW1 had to work as a daily labourer in order to pull on as she and her children were not being properly maintained by the petitioner. The petitioner was engaged in witchcraft and black magic. Under the guise of such business, after the marriage of their daughter, he brought a lady named Soumini daughter of Sivadasan of Kottapuram to his house and they lived together as husband and wife in the presence of PW1. PW1, who happened to see them in a compromising position, made a hue and cry, which resulted in a mediation. Even though the petitioner was reluctant to send Soumini back, in the mediation he was compelled to do it. However, after some days, again he brought her back and started living together in the presence of PW1. Apart from that, the petitioner used to beat PW1 frequently thereby inflicting bodily harm to her. It is also alleged that once he had brought a bottle of poison (furudan) and directed PW1 to consume it. After exerting threat that she would be done away with in case she fails to consume it prior to his coming back, he went away. Even after that, physical and mental harassment continued, and after some days PW1 was forcibly driven out of the house. PW1 took shelter at her house along with her brother. 4. After exerting threat that she would be done away with in case she fails to consume it prior to his coming back, he went away. Even after that, physical and mental harassment continued, and after some days PW1 was forcibly driven out of the house. PW1 took shelter at her house along with her brother. 4. On the basis of Ext.P1 complaint preferred by PW6 before the Sub Inspector of Police, Perinthalmanna, PW5- Head Constable registered Crime No.966 of 2000 through Ext.P2 First Information Report, thereby the law was set in motion. The matter was investigated upon and the charge was laid. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to persuade this Court with an argument that the allegations against the petitioner do not constitute 'cruelty' as defined in the explanation to S.498 IPC and therefore, the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner are not sustainable in law. Per contra, the learned counsel for PW1 and the learned Public Prosecutor have pointed out that the term 'cruelty' defined in the explanation to Section 498A IPC is not only physical harm or any wilful conduct as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide, but also mental cruelty. Section 498A IPC reads, "498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation -For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means- (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment .........." 6. A mere reading of clause (a) will clearly go to show that causing grave injury to health which includes mental or physical is also cruelty withing the meaning of clause (a), if it is a wilful conduct from the part of the husband towards the wife. A mere reading of clause (a) will clearly go to show that causing grave injury to health which includes mental or physical is also cruelty withing the meaning of clause (a), if it is a wilful conduct from the part of the husband towards the wife. The learned counsel for PW1 has relied on the decision in Gananath Pattnaik v. State of Orissa [ (2002) 2 SCC 619 ] wherein it was held: "The concept of cruelty and its effect varies from individual to individual, also depending upon the social and economic status to which such person belongs. "Cruelty" for the purpose of constituting the offence under the aforesaid section need not be physical. Even mental torture or abnormal behaviour may amount to cruelty and harassment in a given case." 7. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that he has brought another woman named Soumini to the house wherein he along with PW1 were residing together. According to PW1, the petitioner frequently used to have sexual contacts with the other woman in her presence. As a wife, PW1 made many attempts to resist the acts of the petitioner, which evoked no favourable response. The matter was taken up before mediators also. Even though for a short period he sent the other woman away, he again brought her back and continued to keep her as his concubine in the presence of PW1. The evidence of PW1 on this aspect is fully corroborated by the versions of PW2, who is the brother of PW1. According to PW2 also, the petitioner was engaged in illicit relationship with another girl named Soumini. In cross-examination he has revealed that presently the petitioner has children also in his relationship with Soumini. The fact that the petitioner was driven out of her house by the petitioner has clearly come out from the evidence of PWs 1 and 2. The version of the petitioner that PW1 had left the house on her own volition on a mere suspicion, can only be taken with a pinch of salt. 8. The evidence clearly reveal that PW1 had to work as a daily labourer only because she and her children were not being maintained by the petitioner. That itself is cruelty from the part of the petitioner. Apart from that she was being frequently beaten up by alleging unchastity on her part. 8. The evidence clearly reveal that PW1 had to work as a daily labourer only because she and her children were not being maintained by the petitioner. That itself is cruelty from the part of the petitioner. Apart from that she was being frequently beaten up by alleging unchastity on her part. Over and above it, he brought a concubine and started living with her and continued to have sexual relationship with her, that too in the presence of his wife. Much discussion is not required to conclude that all the said acts of the petitioner clearly constitute cruelty within the meaning of clause (a) of the Explanation to Section 498(A) of IPC. In Laxman Ram Mane v. State of Maharashtra [ (2010) 13 SCC 125 ] an identical situation was dealt with by the Apex Court, and it was held: "We are of the opinion that an illicit relationship of a married man with another woman would clearly amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A". 9. The evidence clearly prove that the petitioner wanted to avoid PW1. His acts in having sexual relationship with the other woman in the presence of PW1 was a wilful conduct with a view to causing grave mental injury to PW1. Finally, PW1 was driven out of the house also. All these proved facts and circumstances clearly constitute cruelty on the part of the petitioner, within the meaning of clause (a) of the Explanation to S.498(A) of IPC. The concurrent findings on facts entered by both the courts below are not liable to be interfered with, as the same do not suffer from any illegality, irregularity, or impropriety. 10. Regarding the sentence also, this court is satisfied that the sentence imposed by the court below is proportionate to the gravity of the offence proved against the petitioner. Matters being so, this Crl. Revision is devoid of merits and is only to be dismissed, and I do so. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial court to undergo the sentence imposed.